For lawmakers, nothing’s illegal — until they don’t disclose

For example, it’s perfectly legal for Nevada lawmakers to use campaign contributions to pay for expenses such as rent in Carson City or travel to conferences on legislative business.

You’d think that with a housing allowance of $736 per month (offered to those lawmakers who live 50 miles or more from Carson City), plus a per diem of $154 for each day of legislative service, nobody would have to be out of pocket for rent.

And there’s the paltry legislative salary (about $8,800 for the session) on top of that. All told, lawmakers who live far away from the Capitol are making around $30,000 for the four-month session.

But, as I said, that’s not the scandal.

The Las Vegas Sun reported last week that some Democratic lawmakers — relying on the advice of their attorney, Bradley Schrager of the Jones Vargas law firm — have not reported those expenses on forms filed with the state.

Schrager declined to comment, citing attorney-client privilege. But a review of Nevada’s campaign finance statutes shows where he might have a point. The law requires candidates to report their “campaign expenses.” But nowhere in the definition of “campaign expenses” can be found anything related to rent. Ergo, if it’s not a campaign expense, it need not be reported, right?

That list, by the way, covers volunteers, campaign-related travel, advertising, staff, consultants, polling, special events, legal defense funds and contributions to other candidates.

Not only that, but a separate law that prohibits the use of campaign contributions for a candidate’s personal use allows them to spend that money for expenses “in relation to a campaign or serving in public office.” So everybody agrees that it’s not a violation of the law to supplement that housing allowance with some donor dollars.

But Democratic Secretary of State Ross Miller says lawmakers are breaking the law if they fail to report that spending. He says the statues are clear: Everything raised and spent in excess of $100 must be reported, coming in and going out. Not reporting, he says, “flies in the face of the letter and the spirit of the law. That’s not permissible under Nevada law.”

Miller said his office will be sending a letter to several lawmakers and Schrager, requesting clarification of what has and has not been reported. “You’re entrusted with a significant level of responsibility (as an elected official), and I don’t think it’s too much to ask,” Miller said.

Others apparently disagree. Assemblywoman Lucy Flores, D-Las Vegas, declined to comment when I emailed her about the issue, but she told the Sun that the law is burdensome.

“I don’t think it’s necessarily fair to have every single penny reported just because of the level of burden it really takes on a person. Maybe if I had a staffer the state paid for to record every single one of my receipts and ensure they were being kept up full-time and I didn’t have to leave my day job so I could spend an additional couple of hours working on that,” Flores said.

Well, first it’s not “every penny.” It’s every expense in excess of $100. Second, whether somebody thinks it’s fair or not is irrelevant; the issue is whether it’s legally required.

“My whole thing is, just disclose,” Miller said. “Why play games?”

Indeed. Because so much is permitted under Nevada law, there would seem to be no need to play games at all. It’s never the (legal) crime that gets you; it’s the cover-up.

Steve Sebelius is a Review-Journal political columnist and author of the blog SlashPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter (@SteveSebelius) or reach him at (702) 387-5276 or ssebelius@reviewjournal.com.